The following is a summary of a 3-minute exchange (1:06:43-1:10:00) during the September 12th, 2018Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) meeting.
(1:06:43) Pennsylvania Casino Self-Exclusion
PGCB Deputy Chief Counsel Steve Cook describes the plight of [x] who — accompanied by her daughter in June 2013 — requested LIFETIME self-exclusion while on the premises of Hollywood Casino. However, [x] has since petitioned statewide regulators for removal from the list, citing adverse withdrawal effects from the prescription medication Abilify® (aripiprazole) that caused her to form Compulsive and Problem Gambling tendencies during that time.
[x] testified in a hearing earlier this year that she no longer takes Abilify as of January 2018. However, the PA Office of Hearings and Appeals recommends that [x] remain on the list because she requested a LIFETIME self-exclusion.
Commissioner Manderino makes a motion to reject the recommendation from the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and to remove [x] from the LIFETIME voluntary self-exclusion list. This motion is seconded and unanimously adopted by the Board, which means that [x] may now re-enter Hollywood Casino and place real money wagers.
_____
Q:Should [x] have had her LIFETIME placement on the PGCB Voluntary Self-Exclusion List removed by the Board given the information presented? Yes or No? Why or Why Not?
* As a result of the Board's decision, [x] is now able to resume real money wagering on Hollywood (or any other PA casino's) property. I'm not sure if this question is poll-worthy or even thread-worthy, but am interested in any feedback.
I put the over/under on when she gambles the rest of her money away at 7 months.
I believe people should be treated as adults. Offer her the ability to self-exclude herself if she wants. But if she doesn't want to do that any longer, she should have the right remove the exclusion.
Obviously ban should be upheld in this instance. What's the point of a self exclusion if you can just say "nah, I was addicted to gambling but I'm not now so let me gamble." At a bare minimum I would like to see letters from the treating physician and a psychiatrist/counsellor confirming that the addiction was indeed a side effect of the medication, that the medication has permanently ceased and that the petioner no longer suffers from gambling addiction. Addicts lie and the petitioners own testimony should not be considered reliable evidence imo.
At a bare minimum I would like to see letters from the treating physician and a psychiatrist/counsellor confirming that the addiction was indeed a side effect of the medication, that the medication has permanently ceased and that the petioner no longer suffers from gambling addiction.
Those records, if they exist, were ordered sealed in the same motion which removed [x] from the list.
I don’t really think the timeframe for a self-exclusion is that important, just make the degens jump through hoops if they want to reinstate themselves as non-problem gamblers. Wait a couple years for the auto-exclusion period to end, wait a couple months for an interview with some official, get a mental health evaluation, then wait another couple months.
A lifetime ban is just overkill and shouldn’t even be offered except maybe in rare cases where someone relapses and goes through the above maybe three times.
I don’t really think the timeframe for a self-exclusion is that important, just make the degens jump through hoops if they want to reinstate themselves as non-problem gamblers. Wait a couple years for the auto-exclusion period to end, wait a couple months for an interview with some official, get a mental health evaluation, then wait another couple months.
A lifetime ban is just overkill and shouldn’t even be offered except maybe in rare cases where someone relapses and goes through the above maybe three times.
For several reasons it does not appear practical for a casino to ever remove players from a lifetime ban list... unless they were placed on the list incorrectly.
At minimum the casino is potentially exposing itself to litigation and confusion and embarrassment
At minimum the casino is potentially exposing itself to litigation and confusion and embarrassment
Not so much the casino imo, but I get your point. The PA Office of Hearings & Appeals (a subordinate entity within the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board) carried out its investigation in accordance to PA laws. After doing so, it formally recommended to the Board that [x] remain on the list.
The Board then rejected that recommendation and approved a ruling to remove [x] from the list, meaning the casino is not liable for that decision. Although like you say there are ways that one could reasonably see Hollywood (located just outside Harrisburg) also suffering some form of liability/increased compliance or vigilance costs as a result.
I don’t really think the timeframe for a self-exclusion is that important, just make the degens jump through hoops if they want to reinstate themselves as non-problem gamblers. Wait a couple years for the auto-exclusion period to end, wait a couple months for an interview with some official, get a mental health evaluation, then wait another couple months.
A lifetime ban is just overkill and shouldn’t even be offered except maybe in rare cases where someone relapses and goes through the above maybe three times.
I can testify there is strong link to this kind of medication and gambling problems, for a long time I would have felt no emotion if someone killed my own mother, never mind losing money. Being given no option however just leads to frustration and bitterness and can send someone in the other direction off the deep end.
The process for removal from "1 Year" or "5 Year" voluntary self-exclusions requires several steps. Perhaps this was also the process [x] carried out before the "lifetime" self-exclusion removal: (a) make an appointment with PA responsible gaming officials, (b) fill out the required paperwork, (c) in-person appointment to submit paperwork (not sure if this includes an interview), and (d) acknowledgment of the following statement: (Page #390 -- § 503a.5)
"I certify that the information that I have provided above is true and accurate. I am aware that my signature below constitutes a revocation of my previous request for self-exclusion, and I authorize the Board to permit all slot machine licensees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to reinstate my gaming privileges at licensed facilities."
Note that this process can only begin after the voluntary self-exclusion time period has expired.
The Canadian province I live in only allowed me to self exclude for 5 years and they told me i can appeal it in like 2 or 3 years or something. I didn't even ask about reversing it, the guy offered that info to me.
Here's the video from today's PA Gaming Control Board meeting, which lasted 2 hours and 45 minutes.
Rush Street (Rivers & SugarHouse casinos) isn't going to enter the online peer-to-peer (poker) market. No word yet on Qualified Gaming Entities (QGEs) for the separate random Pennsylvania iGaming certificate drawing.
IMO real money online poker games (WSOP - Harrah's, Mount Airy - PokerStars, etc) could launch as soon as this year, although Q1 2019 might be a more reasonable prediction.
There was an interesting part from (2:10:45 - 2:22:38).
Hollywood Casino Pennsylvania terminated the employment of a drinks server for allegedly stealing $18 (the waitress explains that this was an oversight due to being busy and having to work with faulty handheld Point of Sale equipment).
Then Hollywood Casino (a subsidiary of Penn National Gaming) petitioned for the revocation of her non-gaming license. The Board decided to suspend her non-gaming license for only 15 days, so perhaps she'll be able to find employment at another PA casino after that period ends.
Here is the LinkedIn account of "Harry Garula," who the former Hollywood Casino drinks server accuses of trying to coerce her into an admission of guilt on the day she was fired.
any timestamp to the waitress discussion? drinks are almost always free so idk how she'd even have the chance to steal money
Hi gamboneee,
Thanks for asking.
The timestamps for the waitress discussion are now 1:51:01-2:02:57 after the video was re-uploaded without the standby portion before the meeting.
A couple more topics from the video that could be of interest:
2:45-18:00 Is Lombardi's Pizzeria owner Michael Giammarino up to no good? Facilitating an organized crime infiltration into the regulated Pennsylvania casino industry via Parx Casino Bensalem? Or should the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, and the Pennsylvania Bureau of Investigations and Enforcement just cut an old-school businessman with a passion for pizza a break?
2:14:25-2:22:30 So now one of the most sensitive and least talked about topics among gambling industry collaborators ("odds disclosure," "variable payout rates," and "adjustable payout tables" for slot machines) is being revealed in open session? With a penalty package for lack of compliance to boot?
